[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians

Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188

New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into

RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data

I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!!

Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered

Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else

Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them

Ghost Dancers and Democracy: Tucker Carlson


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: One Nation, Under Surveillance
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/200 ... one-nation-under-surveillance/
Published: Nov 17, 2009
Author: Michael Hampton
Post Date: 2009-11-17 06:27:50 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 635
Comments: 55

What have you got to hide? The answer may shock you: If you’re like most Americans, you have far more than you realize that you need to be hiding, and not doing so may be putting you and your family in grave danger.

In his new book, Three Felonies a Day, attorney Harvey Silverglate holds that the typical American professional commits an average of three federal crimes a day, just going about their daily business, without even realizing it. And the only thing keeping them out of prison — make that keeping you out of prison — is the fact that federal prosecutors haven’t looked at you yet. “No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch,” reads a statement on the book’s Web site, “and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.”

While Three Felonies a Day illustrates the problem quite well, today I want to talk about solutions. Likely you have never thought you needed to protect yourself from the government. But you probably weren’t aware that so many federal laws are “impossibly broad and vague” that you were a “criminal” several times over today, just for going to work, picking up your kids, and eating dinner. Moreover, the concept of criminal intent has been largely removed from the law, so you can be imprisoned even if you had no idea what you were doing was against the law.

Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S. As Mr. Silverglate writes, “Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations,” even as “Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood.” Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it. Expect more such prosecutions as Washington adds regulations. — Wall Street Journal

One of the most powerful solutions against the sorts of miscarriages of justice that land people like you in prison is privacy. Privacy makes it much harder for an overzealous prosecutor to spin your perfectly innocent activities into “crimes.” Not to mention it also provides protection against the more mundane threats of identity thieves, psychotic ex-spouses, and so on.

A few people figured out long ago that the federal government wasn’t actually here to help, and one of them, “Boston T. Party,” (a pen name) in 1996 wrote Bulletproof Privacy, now out of print. The thin volume, most of which is now quite dated, provided a how-to manual with practical solutions for increasing your personal privacy. Boston has since rewritten and expanded it, and the new book, One Nation, Under Surveillance, is three times the size, and has at least three times the practical solutions for protecting yourself.

(I met Boston at this year’s New Hampshire Liberty Forum where he spoke on gun rights in the U.S. after the D.C. v. Heller case. He graciously sent me a signed copy of One Nation, Under Surveillance for free. Unfortunately it got buried under a huge stack of papers on my desk for several months and I only recently found it again.)

Privacy is an insurance policy against oppression. Privacy allows a tyrannized citizenry to think independently, freely, and clearly. (Imagine if book stores were regulated as gun stores!) To speak out, network, and organize against unruly government — all of this in perfect accord with your natural rights, and in tradition with our American history and Constitution. We did not form the servile institution of government for the goal of limitless obedience to that servant. Neither did the States federate themselves under the Constitution for the utter dissolution of their own autonomy and prerogatives. . . .

A government which knows everything about its people is an unassailable government, for the people can no longer safely congregate nor precipitate. In an Orwellian state in which all your communications, transactions, and associations are monitored/approved, from whence comes any possible readjustment — much less a successful revolution from it? . . .

When privacy goes, the people have in a sense “thrown away the key” to their shackles. Think of your decreasing privacy as being measured for a tailored straightjacket.

What do you have to hide? Today, perhaps nothing. Next year, maybe a lot depending on new information and revised priorities. Privacy is a comprehensive insurance policy. Keep up the premiums, even if you’re not quite sure why.

I’m not going to share much of the how-to with you. That’s in the book, which you should buy. Now. Or even months ago, and I’m sorry this thing sat under a bunch of junk on my desk for so long. I learned quite a few things I never knew, and refreshed myself on those I did. The thing about many of the privacy techniques shown in the book is that in order to protect your privacy most effectively, they have to be in place already before you are threatened.

That means you — no matter how innocent you think you are — need to protect yourself.

Virtually everything imaginable is covered, most in great detail. A few topics were not covered in detail, such as creating alternate identities, or trusts and financial instruments, since the information tends to go out of date rapidly, or would require their own books, or might be illegal to even talk about (in the supposed land of the free). So it is not a complete how-to, but it is nearly complete.

Most of the expanded content in this book deals with online privacy. This was hardly an issue in 1996 when Bulletproof Privacy was published and almost nobody had even heard of the Internet; today virtually everyone is online and too few people on the Internet do much of anything to protect their privacy. Consider the fugitive who fled to Mexico and then updated his status on Facebook. “People just don’t think through the privacy implications of putting their information on the Internet,” security expert Bruce Schneier wrote Monday. “Facebook is how we interact with friends, and we think of it in the frame of interacting with friends. We don’t think that our employers might be looking — they’re not our friends! — that the information will be around forever, or that it might be abused. Privacy isn’t salient; chatting with friends is.”

The sections dealing with securing your computer and being private online are valuable content and the book is worth buying for this alone; Boston covered pretty much everything, from e-mail to cookies to malware to encryption to government raids. I did spot a few technical errors, but nothing that invalidated the techniques presented.

I do have a few minor nits to pick, though. The first is that I don’t feel enough attention was given to risk assessment. Any security expert will tell you that knowing what risks you face, how likely they are to occur, and how disruptive they would be if they occurred, is critical information in determining what you need to do to protect yourself. Boston assumes that his readers want as much privacy as possible, almost without regard to cost or inconvenience. I would have liked to see more treatment of specific risks and how particular techniques mitigate those risks, as well as how to assess risk generally. This, I think, would make the book more accessible and more useful to a wider audience.

Second, I will have to share one of Boston’s techniques. He recommends using Puppy Linux, a stripped down operating system distribution which can run from a CD or USB stick, instead of having your operating system installed on your hard drive. Puppy Linux can also encrypt your data and save it back to the same USB stick, which he recommends. This is probably workable for some people, and is practically necessary when using a public computer (since they can’t be trusted) but other people will be entirely unable to do this, myself included. His advice to never, ever use Windows for anything is sound, of course. But I do many things which pretty much require an installed operating system, such as video editing. For people who can’t live off a USB stick, I would recommend you install Ubuntu or Fedora, both of which are much more full-featured and also offer simple full-disk encryption for your hard drive which is stronger than that provided in Puppy Linux. (I helped test the full-disk encryption feature in Fedora and contributed a few small bits of code to it.)

Finally, with the rapid changes in technology, and the relentless encroachment of government into every aspect of people’s lives, doubtless much of the information in One Nation, Under Surveillance will be out of date, useless, or even potentially dangerous soon. I would like to see some sort of web site to serve as an online addendum to the book, which could contain errata, new information, perhaps a wiki, etc. Many books, especially dealing with technical topics, have such sites already and they serve to add further value.

One Nation, Under Surveillance should be on the bookshelf of anyone serious about privacy, both online and offline. If you aren’t sure, but you think you might need some privacy in the future, you should use it to get started now. By the time you’re sure you need privacy, it may be too late.

And if you’ll excuse me, I need to clean my desk.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

Good article. Just one small point. Since 90 percent of federal laws are unconstitutional you really aren't breaking the law.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-17   6:58:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Ada, pinguinite (#0)

Puppy Linux

Any ideas on that?

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-17   7:02:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Ada (#0)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2009-11-17   9:06:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)

Never used that, but I use Ubuntu Linux about 1/2 of the time (windows the other half). The transparancy of linux is much greater than windows, plus it is less of a target making you much less likely to inadvertantly shred your privacy with spyware.

The other thing I highly recommend is getting a shell account on a server. I get mine at dreamhost for $8 / month. For that money I can store unlimited amounts of stuff completely privately, host as many domains as I want, share whatever I want with whoever I want, etc. But I can also browse and post semi-anonymously. For example I am posting this from work, but since I am connected to the server with ssh and posting from the server, nobody at work can have any idea what I am doing. Also, obviously the posting address shows up as the server, not my work address. Another advantage to surfing with the shell account is that it is guaranteed virus free, although it take several extra steps to see graphics or videos if I want or need to see those.

Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle

purpleman  posted on  2009-11-17   9:42:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#2)

Puppy Linux

Never heard of it. There are already many flavors of linux that can be installed on a flash drive.

The more encryption, the better.

Pinguinite  posted on  2009-11-17   9:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Ada (#0)

Likely you have never thought you needed to protect yourself from the government.

"Never" ... hahahaha !!!

Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.

noone222  posted on  2009-11-17   10:01:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone (#1)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:06:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Ada (#0)

To speak out, network, and organize against unruly government — all of this in perfect accord with your natural rights, and in tradition with our American history and Constitution. We did not form the servile institution of government for the goal of limitless obedience to that servant. Neither did the States federate themselves under the Constitution for the utter dissolution of their own autonomy and prerogatives. . . .

Someone really needs to inform the washington idiots of this.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

phantom patriot  posted on  2009-11-17   10:19:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)

Thinking that the constitution provides any more protection than a thin sheet of paper is an example of theoretical thinking. The US Courts have stripped the constitution of any real teeth except in very limited areas.

And this is OK?

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

phantom patriot  posted on  2009-11-17   10:23:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: phantom patriot (#9)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:26:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Since 90 percent of federal laws are unconstitutional you really aren't breaking the law.

Exactly correct. I wish more people would realize this.

Also of note, a government that declares that it isn't bound to follow the Constitution is by default no longer a government. The government derives its powers from the framework of the Constitution. If they refuse to be bound by that framework, they lose their privilege of being servants immediately.

Meaning, we're under no obligation to treat them as anything other than criminals.

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-11-17   10:26:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: SonOfLiberty (#11)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:26:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)

This statement is unrealistic. As an attorney, I am continually surprised by the fact that people cannot distinguish between the law in fact and the law in theory. The law in theory provides a second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The law in fact does not, not at all. We are governed by the law in fact, not the law in theory. What does it avail you in a prison cell if you have the law in theory on your side? You are still in prison.

There are times in history, up until recently, when you would be correct. In case you haven't noticed, the rabble out here are tired of the "law in fact" being always contrary to the "law in theory" that we put in place to contain those who pass the "law in fact". If this were 1987, ok we'd all agree "Yeah, what can ya' do". This is 2009, shortly 2010, and nearly all of our liberties are forfeit. We're getting really, really pissed out here. When Stone, or I, or others now state what he stated, we don't state it as some kind of diatribe. We state it as a warning.

Frankly, it's about time most of us shook off the lethargy that allowed "law in fact" to dominate where it should not have. And that's happening, thanks in a large part to the actions over the last eight years, combined with Barry practically raising the flag of the former USSR over the White House.

Law in fact is about to learn why law in theory is more important.

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-11-17   10:32:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: ghostdogtxn (#10)

If you think you can rely on "the law" to protect you from a completely lawless government, you are suffering from a delusion. The occasional win against the government notwithstanding, we haven't been a nation of laws for a long time.

I agree. Nor have we been a nation of liberty. Must be tough to be an attorney with principles if that's possible. No Offence meant.

In my life I've known only one attorney that I felt was a good man. The rest seem to just play the game whether it's right or not.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

phantom patriot  posted on  2009-11-17   10:33:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: SonOfLiberty (#13)

Law in fact is about to learn why law in theory is more important.

Damn straight! Very well put.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

phantom patriot  posted on  2009-11-17   10:36:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)

The law in theory provides a second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The law in fact does not, not at all. We are governed by the law in fact, not the law in theory. What does it avail you in a prison cell if you have the law in theory on your side? You are still in prison.

You make the author's point quite well.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2009-11-17   10:40:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: SonOfLiberty (#13)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:48:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: phantom patriot (#14)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:52:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#16)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:53:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#17)

I've had similar discussions with others on this. It may well be a regional perception. The central Ohio rallies had a *very* strong libertarian (little "L") pressence and lots of booing for Republicans as a group. I saw no Bush supporters and the few who went on about the WOT as if it were good were more or less told to pound sand. Gadsden flags literally encompassed the state house grounds, posters of Jefferson were everywhere, and there were even a lot of Rand quotes ("Who is John Galt" and such) on signs. If the GOP hoped to hook into that, they were denied.

Maybe it is different elsewhere?

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-11-17   10:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)

As for "playing the game", the reality is that my clients do not come first. My family and my friends and those who trust and rely on me come first. That means feeding them and sheltering them and equipping them with the tools to survive in an era of increasing oppression. I intend to survive and to remain free, and keep those near me safe and free, too. If that means I have to emigrate or break the law, I will do what it takes.

Looks like we're on the same team.

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-11-17   10:57:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: SonOfLiberty (#20)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:58:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: SonOfLiberty (#21)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   10:59:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)

I am continually surprised by the fact that people cannot distinguish between the law in fact and the law in theory.

As an alleged attorney you would have to literally suck ass and give up the constitution to practice your in your profession. You are an enemy of our constitution. You further make up terms to provide cover for the harm you do to true law our constitution.

The law in fact is laws that don't contradict the constitution.

The color of law is what you consider the law in fact.

Your support usurpers.

You don't only keep people from learning the true law but you lie down in the way so that others wont be able to know the true law.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-17   11:03:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)

Knowing the true history of this nation should disabuse one of any loyalty to its government.

I understand family and others coming first. But I must say the few times I've hired an attorney I have relied and tried to trust them only to be disappointed.

I don't know you other than you posts. But your opinions lead me to believe you're a good man. I share many of your opinions. Good luck and health to you and yours.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

phantom patriot  posted on  2009-11-17   11:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#24)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   11:11:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: phantom patriot (#25)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   11:15:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: ghostdogtxn (#26)

Result? I go to jail for contempt, my client stays in jail and I lose my job.

I guess your just saying the current lawyers are a bunch of pussies. That they are not of the caliber of men who founded the nation. I'm sure glad our founders didn't have the go along with evil that todays lawyers have by your own admission.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-17   11:16:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone, ghostdogtxn (#28)

I guess your just saying the current lawyers are a bunch of pussies. That they are not of the caliber of men who founded the nation. I'm sure glad our founders didn't have the go along with evil that todays lawyers have by your own admission.

I would be interested in hearing what you believe he should be doing.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-11-17   11:23:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Hayek Fan (#29)

Making constitutional arguments.

Encouraging others to do the same.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-17   11:28:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   11:29:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone, Hayek Fan (#30)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   11:33:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: ghostdogtxn (#27)

On the other hand, if you are charged with murder, I have actually tried and won murder cases, so I am probably a guy you should consider.

I would hope it never comes to that but, I'll keep you in mind.

On the other hand if it did come to that you might be as guilty as I. Depending on the situation.:)

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

phantom patriot  posted on  2009-11-17   11:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: phantom patriot (#33)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   11:37:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: ghostdogtxn (#32)

I make constitutional arguments when I can. But I am actually prohibited from making arguments that have been foreclosed by final opinion of the USSCT.

Not sure I understand. Can you explain that in layman's terms? What precisely does "forclosed by final opinion of the USSCT" mean?

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-11-17   11:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: A K A Stone (#30)

Making constitutional arguments.

Encouraging others to do the same.

Well, speaking for myself, if I was facing jail time and had to choose between a lawyer who was going to do whatever it took to keep me out of jail or a lawyer who was going to stand on principle and argue the Constitution at the expense of my freedom, I'll take the former, thank you very much.

The problem with your theory is that most of the constitutional issues have already been settled (rightly or wrongly) and you'd be wasting your time. The court would reject it out of hand and site the precedent of earlier court rulings as their justification.

The judicial system is as corrupt as the other two branches of government. For the most part, the judge positions are filled with life long Democan and Republicrat prosecutors whose outlook isn't what's best for "we the people" but on what's best for government. Hell, the USSC has come right out and said that very thing on more than one occasion, Kilo vs. New London being just one example. They know exactly what the Constitution says and they just don't give a damn if it interferes with the power of the government.

You have a right to your opinion, but I believe that the focus of your anger is misplaced. The problems we see today can only be fixed by removing the Republicrat and Democan parties from power in ALL three branches of government. They are a huge, corrupt and single political machine that is strangling all of us. Lawyers like ghostdogtxn are just trying to survive the best they can like the rest of us. It's unrealistic and unfair to expect him to do anymore than anyone else is doing IMHO.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-11-17   11:47:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: SonOfLiberty (#35)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   12:08:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: ghostdogtxn (#37)

So if I understand what you've written correctly, it can be summed up as "Sure, it may well be a valid argument, but we forbid you from using it"?

If this is the case, it sounds to me like something quite horrendous. I'm not stating that you're not bound to comply, fwiw.

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-11-17   12:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: SonOfLiberty (#38)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   12:27:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: ghostdogtxn (#37)

What if all of the answers are right for a verdict of guilty, but the "victim" had raped and murdered the child of the defendant? In other words, what if the "victim" deserved killing? In days of yore the lawyer could argue that the jury should acquit the defendant because of this, and thereby "nullify" the effect of the law.

In an example such as this, would a juror that voted not guilty have to justify his not guilty vote to the judge?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-11-17   12:28:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Hayek Fan (#40)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   12:32:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: ghostdogtxn (#41)

In an example such as this, would a juror that voted not guilty have to justify his not guilty vote to the judge?

No, but the jury might be prohibited from even hearing about the rape and murder under F.R. Ev 404(b).

That's good to know. The reason I asked is because I've often thought that if I were ever a juror sitting on a trial in which a person is being prosecuted under a drug law, I would vote not guilty regardless of the facts of the case. It may not get the person off but at least it'll hang the jury I'm on.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-11-17   12:36:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Hayek Fan (#42)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   12:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Hayek Fan (#42)

That's good to know. The reason I asked is because I've often thought that if I were ever a juror sitting on a trial in which a person is being prosecuted under a drug law, I would vote not guilty regardless of the facts of the case. It may not get the person off but at least it'll hang the jury I'm on.

Usually they will have a burglary, selling to children/minors accusation, DUI , public indecency, etc thrown in. Really... I have never seen one inmate sentenced solely on small quantity drug possession without including the behavior that caused the search in the first place. I'm sure it has happen but it's rare.

mininggold  posted on  2009-11-17   12:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: mininggold (#44)

Usually they will have a burglary, selling to children/minors accusation, DUI , public indecency, etc thrown in. Really... I have never seen one inmate sentenced solely on small quantity drug possession without including the behavior that caused the search in the first place. I'm sure it has happen but it's rare.

I believe you have to vote guilty or not guilty on each charge, so if the facts warrant it, I would vote guilty on the burglary, DUI, etc. I would not, however, vote guilty on the selling to children/minors charge. With any luck the parents of the children will be drug warriors. LOL! The irony of that would be delicious. If parents don't want people dealing drugs to their children then they can damned well stop the drug war and put the shit in the stores where it belongs. Just like alcohol and tobacco.

For that matter, I would vote not guilty on any drug dealing or growing charges, regardless of how big they are and regardless of the drug.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-11-17   12:54:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: SonOfLiberty (#20)

One of the conservative radio hosts that yacks during the evening commute was commenting on how the "Tea Party" rabble was successfully derailing the party insider candidates in the recent primary elections. It made it pretty clear that the Tea Party grassroots are not your country clubber old school Republicans.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2009-11-17   16:51:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, all (#46)

We have the candidates - they have the black-box voting machines.

Lod  posted on  2009-11-17   16:59:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: ghostdogtxn (#32)

Supreme court decisions are reversed.

Still sounds like a sell out lawyer to me. Nothing personal.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-17   17:10:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-17   17:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#46)

One of the conservative radio hosts that yacks during the evening commute was commenting on how the "Tea Party" rabble was successfully derailing the party insider candidates in the recent primary elections. It made it pretty clear that the Tea Party grassroots are not your country clubber old school Republicans.

I sure wish it was that way around my part of the woods. The Tea Party folks here are strongly involved in the backing of Roy Blunt for Senate. Here's a guy that was number 3 in the House during the entire Bush administration. He co-wrote the free-meds for geezeers legislation and not only voted for every single piece of big government legislation presented to him during the Bush reign but was instrumental in ramming it down the throat of conservatives.

You would think that supposed conservative Republicans would have held him accountable by voting him out of office. Nope. He was rewarded for his betrayal by being re-elected and is being further rewarded by becoming the front runner to replace Kit Bond (another conservative backstabbing neocon).

I'm afraid that I've been unable to get too excited about the tea parties going on around here.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-11-17   18:33:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: ghostdogtxn (#31)

Would I prefer a jury pool composed of honest and courageous citizens who weren't enamored of the trappings of the law or baffled and intimidated by men in black robes?

That would solve about 99% of our problems.


Let me get this straight.

Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong? - buckeroo

Critter  posted on  2009-11-17   18:42:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Ada (#0)

Close to 15-thousand U.S. taxpayers have come forward to report previously undisclosed foreign bank accounts under the voluntary disclosure program implemented following settlements of civil and criminal cases against Swiss banking giant UBS and agreeing to pay tens of millions in taxes according to the IRS.

www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1132652

Tatarewicz  posted on  2009-11-18   7:20:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: ghostdogtxn (#49)

You think it is funny to be a sell out. lol back at ya.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-18   7:40:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2009-11-19   10:27:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: ghostdogtxn (#54)

I think it's funny you can call someone a sell out and then say "nothing personal".

I think you are completely out of touch with reality and a bit of a buffoon. Nothing personal.

Ok. I read what you wrote. No offense taken here. Have a good day.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-11-19   19:34:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]